Ex parte MATTHEW A. HOWARD et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 96-0022                                                          
          Application 08/096,214                                                      

          melts thereby disconnecting the magnet from the carrier means               
          (Specification, pages 14 and 18).                                           
                    Independent claim 39 is representative of the subject             
          matter on appeal and reads as follows:                                      
                    39.  A drug delivery apparatus comprising:                        
                    a)  a magnetic means for inserting in a body part;                
                    b)  a carrier means for carrying a treatment to a                 
          specific location in the body part; and                                     
                    c)  a connection means for releasably connecting the              
          carrier means to the magnetic means and for disengaging the                 
          carrier means from the magnetic means.                                      
                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
                    The following reference was relied on by the examiner:            
          Diefenbach               2,589,349           March 18, 1952                 
                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
                    Claims 43 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  112, second           
          paragraph.                                                                  
                    Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as              
          being anticipated by Diefenbach.                                            
                    Claims 42-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as              
          being obvious over Diefenbach.                                              
                    Rather than reiterate the entire arguments of the                 
          appellants and the examiner in support of their respective                  



                                         -3-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007